Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gave a provocative and even
dangerous speech at the National Defense University (NDU) last week that
revealed the cold-war thinking of a key holdover from the Bush administration.
With language reminiscent of the worst days of the cold war in the 1950s, Gates
argued that the "demilitarization of Europe - where large swaths of the
general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks
that go with it - has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment
to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st century." He
concluded that a perception of European weakness could provide a
"temptation to miscalculation and aggression" by hostile powers.
Gates didn't name these so-called hostile powers; indeed, it would have been
ludicrous to try to do so.

- Advertisement -

Instead of haranguing the European members of NATO, who don't share
our views about the threat of international terrorism or the need for a
counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter), the United
States should be reducing its own global military presence, including its
commitment to NATO. For the past several years, under both the Bush and Obama
administrations, Gates has been making the case for turning NATO into an instrument
for the projection of power abroad, using Afghanistan as an example of an
expanded global role. The international coalition did not work well in Iraq; it
is not working well in Afghanistan; and the results of these efforts point to
the dysfunction of NATO as a military alliance. Did Gates notice that the
coalition government in Netherlands collapsed on the eve of his speech because
of the controversy over keeping Dutch troops in Afghanistan?

A little more than a year ago, President Obama gave a hopeful inauguration
speech that demonstrated he understood the need to reverse US national security
policy. His rejection of the "false choice between our safety and our
ideals" was a denunciation of the Bush administration's subversion of the
Constitution in the wake of 9/11. His emphasis on earlier generations that
"understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us
to do as we please," appeared to be a rejection of Bush's "long
war" against terror that has created more enemies than friends. In
stressing that the "world has changed, and we must change with it,"
Obama sounded the clarion call for new policies.

- Advertisement -

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has pursued the expansion of
the military mission, which was begun by the Bush administration in the wake of
9/11. In the last few months, the president has approved a defense budget with
a greater focus on counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. These
efforts will require greater long-term spending and will require the Pentagon
to control programs dealing with security assistance and training that should
be in the hands of civilian foreign policy institutions, particularly the
Department of State. At the same time, there has been no institutionalized
effort to set priorities for the military mission, to make choices and to
accept tradeoffs in weapons systems and military requirements.

In addition to expanding the war in Afghanistan, dispatching 30,000
additional troops on a fool's errand, President Obama has endorsed the Justice
Department's virtual exoneration of the authors of the torture memoranda, and
called for increased defense spending. The president wants a new strategic arms
agreement with Russia, but he won't drop the idea of NATO membership for
Georgia and the Ukraine as well as an expanded ballistic missile defense in
East Europe, which are obstacles to completion of the arms agreement. The
unproven national missile defense remains the most expensive weapons project in
the Pentagon's budget. In his State of the Union speech, the president endorsed
cuts in domestic spending at the same time he was increasing our spending on
the military ($708 billion), the intelligence community ($75 billion) and
homeland security ($55 billion), which exceeds the spending of the rest of the
world.

The Pentagon's budget for 2011 accounts for nearly 5 percent of the US
economy, and calls for increased spending for all of the services as well as
most weapons systems. Defense spending has doubled in real terms over the past
decade, and the turnaround time for some weapons systems now takes nearly two
decades. The Republicans demanded and received huge increases in spending on
modernization for nuclear weapons in return for the hope of their support for
ratification of a nuclear arms treaty with Russia. Does anyone in the Obama
administration genuinely believe that the Republicans will provide the support
needed to actually ratify the soon-to-be-completed treaty? Does anyone believe
that the $11 billion allocated for training the Afghan army and police will
lead to a greater Afghan role in the fight against the Taliban? Meanwhile, key
members of the military-industrial complex (e.g., Lockheed Martin, Boeing,
Northrup Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon) spent more than $80 million
dollars in lobbying for $100 billion in defense contracts. Does President
Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex nearly 50 years ago
ring a bell?

- Advertisement -

Perhaps,
President Obama should take a few minutes out of his busy day to compare Gates'
speeches at the NDU in the Obama administration to the speeches the secretary
gave at the NDU during the Bush administration. Perhaps, the similarities in
theme and thrust would concern the president, unless he is content to continue
the policies of militarization of his predecessor. And, perhaps, it is time for
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to sit up and take notice that her
stewardship over US foreign policy has been weakened by the secretary of
defense's domination of the foreign policy agenda. Then again, perhaps she is
content to travel around the world at a record-setting pace while ignoring the
tough issues that bedevil US national security. Instead of wringing our hands
about the demilitarization and pacification of Europe, which should be
welcomed, perhaps someone in the Obama administration should be examining the
need for reducing the power of the Pentagon, including a freeze in defense
spending and rebuilding the tools of diplomacy.